[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[LondonJohn]

Note - A number of biologists on twitter (myself included) have pointed out the errors in this opinion piece...

One of the more insidious things to have happened in printed media over the past 10 years or so is the exponential growth in "blog"-style opinion pieces. Such articles are not subject to anything more than the mildest of editorial rigour (and most of that is to check that nothing potentially libellous has been written), but yet they appear under the banner of the publication.

So to take this article as an example, it appears as "a Scientific American article". But it's really nothing of the sort, of course. Moreover, it's now a common tactic for people at the more extreme end of a given issue to get these sorts of blog articles placed under the banner of publications which have a good reputation as a trusted source (eg Scientific American). That way, the blog article authors know very well that their opinions are much more likely to gain legitimacy and credence than if, for example, they'd been published on Facebook or a special-interest website.

Personally, I've learned to treat with extreme caution these sorts of online-only blog articles under the banner of an esteemed and trusted publication. I find them useful as a way of looking at a given issue through a different set of eyes. But I would never, ever treat them as trusted sources of material facts, and nor would I ever treat them as pointers towards objective, well-informed opinion (because more often than not, they are not).

 

[sarge]

Why should I (a cis het male) be "forced against my will" to be nude in front of an out gay man? Why would that not be precisely the same sort of "clear, obvious and measurable violation"?

I don’t consider the circumstances remotely equal, however I may be victim of a person bias. I am a hetero cis male that wouldn’t be the slightest bit uncomfortable showering in front of an openly gay male. The number of males that could single handidly successfully assault me sexually is minuscule.

But I’m not obligated to answer your fair question until I know your position on my stance....

Do you believe it reasonable to allow persons with male genitalia to shower with persons born with a vagina who have no choice but to flee or submit to the circumstances? Does the trans woman in this instance have a right to shower with biological females that do not want to be present and nude with members of the opposite sex?

We are discussing a right. I oppose the second amendment as it is currently interpreted. I do not relax completely when surrounded by gun-totters in public. Their right to carry trumps my right to not be nervous, but only because when the right was added to the constitution, people carrying guns was perfectly normal, unthreatening, and even necessary. I see no need to invent a right for males to shower with females.

 

[Distracted1]

Your right is no more and no less than my right*. And I - quite rightly on every level - have freely and willingly given up my right "not to have gay males being sexually attracted to my naked body in the men's changing room", because clearly it's a ridiculous notion** to say that gay males cannot use the men's changing room.

Incidentally, if a transwoman came into the women's changing rooms, but she was a transwoman who'd had full gender reassignment surgery, would you still object on the grounds of not wanting the possibility of her giving you "the male gaze" while you were changing?


* I assume you're a female, from the context of what you're saying here. I apologise if I'm wrong in that assumption.

** The funny (peculiar) thing is that 50-odd years ago, this wouldn't have been thought about as a ridiculous notion at all to at least a significant minority of the population in countries such as the US and UK. Fortunately, times change. Just as they will wrt transgender rights and protections.

If the gaze of another is not a legitimate justification for the segregation of private areas, what is?

Again, it seems your arguments are against segregated changing areas at all, for anyone who wishes to ignore the prohibition.

If we are to limit the argument for segregating changing areas to nothing other than the (slim) possibility of being sexually assaulted- and rule out being looked at in a sexual manner as a form of sexual assault- then disallowing gay men from mens' locker rooms makes as much sense as disallowing men from womens' spaces.

Your logic leads inevitably to the disolution of segregated "private" spaces.

 

[Meadmaker]

.
I don't really understand what you're saying in your final paragraph. And whatever you're alluding to, I can't see how it addresses the matter of quite why the Biden presidency and the House a) presented/passed a bill recognising transgender people inclusively, and b) used gender separation as the arbiter. I realise you think they got it wrong. I, on the other hand, think they got it bang-on right. And I know precisely how/why they got it right. It'd be interesting if you were able to expand upon why you think they got it wrong. After all, this is the actual real world - and the real world appears, repeatedly, to be reaching pretty much diametrically opposite conclusions/policies from yours.

I am alluding to the fact this is a very controversial subject on which opinion is closely divided in the United States. The Federal Government (sic) got it wrong, or right, depending on your perspective, because lots of people think it is a good, or bad, idea. A few weeks ago, The Federal Government refused to consider the exact same bill, because a clear majority of the Senate, and the President, opposed it.

Either way, I'm not sure you seem to think it's important. One of the most common logical fallacies is any variation on "I'm right because X agrees with me." It could be, "I'm right because the law agrees with me." "I'm right because the majority of people agree with me." "I'm right because some specific authority figure, or group of figures, agree with me." They are all fallacies. Your arguments are correct, or incorrect, valid, sound, invalid, or unsound, quite independently of whether 218 or more members of the House or Representatives share your opinion.

I'm not even sure you are correct about where the majority opinion is headed. I think that some of what has gone on is that people support or oppose these laws based on ignorance. I'm sure you would agree when it comes to opponents of the Equality Act, but I think it's true of supporters as well. Most Americans are not as familiar with transgender issues as the participants in this thread, and a huge number of people think that "transgender" means people who have undergone physical transformation. As they learn otherwise, opposition tends to increase. We shall see what happens in the future.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I note with interest that you're still insistent on using scare-quotes around "woman" when you write ""woman" with a penis who looks exactly like a man". But to answer your question: yes, of course. If I - a male with a penis who looks exactly like a man - choose to identify as a woman, then the bill offers me protection against discrimination on the grounds of my identification as a woman. I really don't see how this is difficult to comprehend.

There's absolutely zero lack of comprehension. We comprehend this very, very well. And that's the problem.

Read your own last bit there. You, who are male, who present as male, need only identify yourself as a woman... and by doing so you now would have the LEGAL RIGHT to go into any female-only space and look at naked females - WHETHER THEY WANT YOU TO OR NOT. There is nothing that females can do to prevent you from looking at them without their consent.

Give that a minute of thought, please.

This law creates a situations that literally removes the consent of females from whether or not males get to look at them naked. Males can now, legally, force females into a situation where they can be viewed by males even if they don't want to.

The only solution that females have in order to avoid being the unwilling object of voyeurs... is to NOT USE ANY OF THOSE SPACES.

 

[Meadmaker]

But are you someone who believes that the words "man" and "woman" should mean what they've "always meant" - in other words, that those words should continue indefinitely being wholly synonymous with "male" and "female"?

That would be my preference.

But the point is that words mean what people think they mean. If people start using any of those words differently, then those words mean something else. However, biological sex is important, and it is sufficiently important that society will have a word to describe what was once described by "man" and "woman". If the collective consciousness of society alters the meaning of those words, then society will invent new words to describe the same thing.

But if you're saying it's simply to do with the sexual organs that are on display with a nude body, then there are some rather obvious follow-on questions - starting with a flat-out "why?".

There was a post yesterday describing the role of modesty for natal females relating to the consequences of sexual intercourse. i won't repeat that argument, but I agree with its substance.

It's only really when people reach pubescence that separation becomes a proper factor*. So, as much as you're claiming it's just down to biology, I'd say that the true underlying reason revolves wholly around issues related to sexual attraction.

I think it's more accurate to say that the underlying reason revolves around the issues related to sexual function.

On top of all that..... consider, say, a transwoman who has had gender reassignment surgery and whose hormone treatment has given her breasts and resulted in other feminine body/face characteristics. Which changing rooms, in your opinion, should this person use, and why?

For the answer, I will refer you to one of my recent posts:

(One thing that I will emphasize that might be applicable to any of the above is that my major objections started when people insisted that psychology alone be a determining factor for issues involving sex based segregation. In other words, if you have been through surgical alteration, I would treat you as the "new" sex, and give access to all female only spaces. With no transition at all, beyond "social transition", I would be more inclined to say that trans people should use the facilities of their biological sex. When on hormones, or transitions that are short of full surgery, I will say that I do not know exactly where to draw the line and open up the locker room door to people born of the opposite sex.

For the justification of that answer, I could write at length on the subject, but I don't think doing so would actually advance the conversation, so I will not do so unless that seems to be where things are going with the thread. We have time for it later if anyone appears to be interested.

My general approach as to which facilities a person in the process of transitioning should use was expressed earlier by someone else in the thread as, "Go where you will raise the fewest eyebrows."

 

[Meadmaker]

What does that mean in terms of stereotypes?
Should we look to gender-normative signals to treat "gender identity' people fairly? Or can a 'woman' with a penis who looks exactly like a man also qualify here?

Talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Poorly written.

I also not that they single out women as victims of sexual harassment. The LGBTQ group get the words "harassment and violence". No violence for women? How odd. (the word 'female' is NEVER used and 'woman' is never defined)

Read it here!: https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr5/BILLS-117hr5ih.xml

I suspect the vagueness is a feature, not a bug, in the minds of the authors.

They are counting on the courts to fill in the details, and to do so in an expansive fashion.

 

[LondonJohn]

If the gaze of another is not a legitimate justification for the segregation of private areas, what is?

Again, it seems your arguments are against segregated changing areas at all, for anyone who wishes to ignore the prohibition.

If we are to limit the argument for segregating changing areas to nothing other than the (slim) possibility of being sexually assaulted- and rule out being looked at in a sexual manner as a form of sexual assault- then disallowing gay men from mens' locker rooms makes as much sense as disallowing men from womens' spaces.
Your logic leads inevitably to the disolution of segregated "private" spaces.

You've figured out precisely what's wrong with your own argument very concisely with these words.


Although you're still misusing definitions. What you ought to have written is this (my bolding to point out the necessary alterations): "...disallowing gay males from mens' locker rooms makes as much sense as disallowing males from womens' spaces."

 

[LondonJohn]

I don’t consider the circumstances remotely equal, however I may be victim of a person bias. I am a hetero cis male that wouldn’t be the slightest bit uncomfortable showering in front of an openly gay male. The number of males that could single handidly successfully assault me sexually is minuscule.

But I’m not obligated to answer your fair question until I know your position on my stance....

Do you believe it reasonable to allow persons with male genitalia to shower with persons born with a vagina who have no choice but to flee or submit to the circumstances? Does the trans woman in this instance have a right to shower with biological females that do not want to be present and nude with members of the opposite sex?

We are discussing a right. I oppose the second amendment as it is currently interpreted. I do not relax completely when surrounded by gun-totters in public. Their right to carry trumps my right to not be nervous, but only because when the right was added to the constitution, people carrying guns was perfectly normal, unthreatening, and even necessary. I see no need to invent a right for males to shower with females.

Well.... firstly, you're not "obligated" to answer anything I ask under any circumstances.

Secondly, you appear to be confusing two factors: 1) whether, on principle, ciswomen should be "forced to" (your language) share changing space with male transwomen; and 2) whether ciswomen should feel threatened - whether from discomfort or from more serious offending - by being "forced to" share changing space with male transwomen.

And you further cloud the issue by means of your (somewhat bizarre, IMO) statement in which you appear to base your comfort about showering in front of a gay male upon your view that you'd be able to "handle yourself" up against almost all other males.

If you're looking for a succinct answer to your question though: yes.

But I very heavily caveat this with two factors: firstly, where this becomes law - as I know it will, throughout the "westernised" world - it will be incumbent upon governments (national and local), municipal authorities and private enterprises to take all reasonable steps to provide acceptable levels of protection, monitoring and deterrent. I've already stated before that IMO this would, for example, include the provision of panic buttons in women's changing rooms, together with some level of video/audio recording (which could only be accessed with due cause), and signage pointing all of this out*. And if for one or more reasons this is not being done, then I would readily agree that this would be cause for major representations being made.

And secondly - again as I've stated before - any new policy in this area will most definitely need to be monitored extremely carefully. If it really does turn out that it precipitates a rise in offences against females in women-only spaces, then I'd fully expect there to be a revision or reversal of policy. But - and I'll say this once again as well - one simply cannot refuse to implement these sorts of rights-based policies purely on the basis of what might happen wrt another group's own rights** (and no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with treating females as "guinea pigs" and not caring about the safety or dignity of females).


* Though, as others have already pointed out, any male can in fact already go into women's changing rooms with total alacrity, and that's been the case for decades and decades.

** Just as there most certainly were plenty of white people who argued that the "relaxation" of black civil rights in the Southern US states in the 50s-60s would result in an increase in criminal activity against whites......

 

[Meadmaker]

But if you're saying it's simply to do with the sexual organs that are on display with a nude body, then there are some rather obvious follow-on questions - starting with a flat-out "why?".

I do want to add one thing to my previous answer. My previous answer was all about justification. Why should people care about nudity or privacy?

In terms of policy, though, an even more important element of the answer is, "I don't really care. If people want the segregation, I will support their desires."

In the case of biological females invading men's spaces, no one seems to get all bent out of shape about it. In the case of biological males in women's spaces, an awful lot of women seem to get upset about it. I decided some time back that I would support their desires, even if they cannot write a philosophical treatise on the subject.

I think the people who redesigned the Home Office toilets should have applied that same principle. In theory (in their opinion, of course) there should have been no issues. In practice, the people who work in that building have experienced discomfort, inefficiency, and inconvenience as a result of the changes.

 

[Collin237]

I assume that's not what the Act intended so it's just another example of how "even some politicians and journalists can't figure out (pretty simple) definitions".

I'm not so sure. Taken literally, not being discriminated against using a locker room on the basis of gender, would indeed mean the opposite of what everyone is assuming. But making such a claim would require using logic.

There seems to be a lot of reliance on religion in debates on trans rights. And this is one case where religion actually is, as Christopher Hitchens said, a "poison". By specifically denying appeals to the RFRA, the Equality Act forces people to use logic to figure out the details.

 

[Distracted1]

You've figured out precisely what's wrong with your own argument very concisely with these words.


Although you're still misusing definitions. What you ought to have written is this (my bolding to point out the necessary alterations): "...disallowing gay males from mens' locker rooms makes as much sense as disallowing males from womens' spaces."

No. What I wrote was accurate.
Male dogs, hamsters, and pigeons may not need exclusion under your reasoning.
Male humans- known as "Men", do.

 

[Matthew Best]

There seems to be a lot of reliance on religion in debates on trans rights.

Really? What does "religion" have to say about it?

 

[theprestige]

There seems to be a lot of reliance on religion in debates on trans rights.

Where are you seeing this?

Nothing in the debate in this thread has relied on religion. Not in this installment, not in any other installment. None of the other debates referenced in this thread (Canadian law, Scottish policy, trans rights activism and opposition, etc.) have relied on religion.

As far as I can tell, there seems to be pretty much zero reliance on religion in these debates.

If you were to read the thread, you'd see that it's been logic all along.*

---
*Well, and some woo, but not religion. Unless you subscribe to my view that you don't need to be a theist to have a religion, and that the TRA position seems to be falling into all the common failure modes of religion.

 

[d4m10n]

Though, as others have already pointed out, any male can in fact already go into women's changing rooms with total alacrity, and that's been the case for decades and decades.

By way of experiment, you try this and see what kind of reaction you get. Will the people busy changing simply assume that you belong there or will they react more like the ladies at the Home Office?

 

[Collin237]

Really? What does "religion" have to say about it?

That they're trying to subvert God's plan for biology. Catholics mostly.

 

[LondonJohn]

That would be my preference.

But the point is that words mean what people think they mean. If people start using any of those words differently, then those words mean something else. However, biological sex is important, and it is sufficiently important that society will have a word to describe what was once described by "man" and "woman". If the collective consciousness of society alters the meaning of those words, then society will invent new words to describe the same thing.

Are you still unaware that in the context where "man" and "woman" refer strictly to gender (and do not refer to biological sex), society does now have (and will contine to have) words to describe a person's biological sex? FYI, those words - which can be employed either as nouns or adjectives - are:

Male

Female

 

[LondonJohn]

By way of experiment, you try this and see what kind of reaction you get. Will the people busy changing simply assume that you belong there or will they react more like the ladies at the Home Office?

Oh I'm in little to no doubt about the reaction I would get*. But that's immaterial. The point is that cismen can currently walk straight into spaces where women are undressing or using the bathroom, if they so wish.

I'm also in little doubt that a similar reaction will be evinced the day after new laws are introduced giving transwomen the right to use women's bathrooms and changing rooms. Indeed, I fully expect that transmen and transwomen will come up against considerable pushback - and very probably abuse - when they first start using the bathrooms and changing rooms to which they're entitled in law (and, for that matter, ethics).

And that's because the public at large are reactionary by instinct. So therefore, just as it took "the man (or woman) in the street" many years - too many years - to become comfortable with gay rights and gay rights legislation, I fully expect that it will take several years for people (especially people over the age of, say, 40) to a) recognise and accept transgender identity, and b) understand, respect and feel entirely comfortable with transgender rights legislation.

The one cause for hope is that it appears the majority of people under the age of around 25 are already fully on board with the concept and practical applications of transgender rights. And the corresponding cause for hope is that many of the most vocal opponents of transgender rights within society are likely to die out within the next 30-40 years.


* And in that respect, the Home Office experiment actually served a very useful purpose: it showed just how antediluvial public attitudes currently are in this area. But things can - and will - change for the better.

 

[sarge]

Well....



Secondly, you appear to be confusing two factors: 1) whether, on principle, ciswomen should be "forced to" (your language) share changing space with male transwomen; and 2) whether ciswomen should feel threatened - whether from discomfort or from more serious offending - by being "forced to" share changing space with male transwomen.

I don’t believe I’m confusing anything. I believe, in principle, that the right of woman to not be forced (that is the correct word) to get nude in front of men against their will trumps the desires of men to be allowed to get nude in front of women. I believe, in fact, that the women that will be grossly uncomfortable in being forced to strip against their will in front of nude men are justified in being grossly uncomfortable. I believe mine is by far the more accurate description of the inevitable outcome of any law that compels private spaces to accept use by any person that self identifies as a gender that is perfectly opposite their actual sex.

And you further cloud the issue by means of your (somewhat bizarre, IMO) statement in which you appear to base your comfort about showering in front of a gay male upon your view that you'd be able to "handle yourself" up against almost all other males.

On the contrary. That I can prevent any unwanted discomfort that results from the action of most all men with whom I am nude isn’t clouding the issue, it IS the issue in the question you posed.

If you're looking for a succinct answer to your question though: yes.

Thank you. I believe your position is in opposition to the rights of females.

But I very heavily caveat this with two factors: firstly, where this becomes law - as I know it will, throughout the "westernised" world - it will be incumbent upon governments (national and local), municipal authorities and private enterprises to take all reasonable steps to provide acceptable levels of protection, monitoring and deterrent. I've already stated before that IMO this would, for example, include the provision of panic buttons in women's changing rooms, together with some level of video/audio recording (which could only be accessed with due cause), and signage pointing all of this out*. And if for one or more reasons this is not being done, then I would readily agree that this would be cause for major representations being made.

The level of safeguarding that is required to make this proposed policy safe for women is the only argument needed in opposition. It is and always will be wrong to force women to get naked in front of men against their will. There is not good to be achieved by doing so.

And secondly - again as I've stated before - any new policy in this area will most definitely need to be monitored extremely carefully. If it really does turn out that it precipitates a rise in offences against females in women-only spaces, then I'd fully expect there to be a revision or reversal of policy. But - and I'll say this once again as well - one simply cannot refuse to implement these sorts of rights-based policies purely on the basis of what might happen wrt another group's own rights** (and no, this has nothing whatsoever to do with treating females as "guinea pigs" and not caring about the safety or dignity of females).

There is no and there can never be a right for men to be nude with women that do not consent.

* Though, as others have already pointed out, any male can in fact already go into women's changing rooms with total alacrity, and that's been the case for decades and decades.

Where can this currently occur? Specifically where can a man walk into a woman’s shower without consequence while it is in use by women, strip, and start washing up?

** Just as there most certainly were plenty of white people who argued that the "relaxation" of black civil rights in the Southern US states in the 50s-60s would result in an increase in criminal activity against whites......

Worst analogy in the history of the internet. It fails in every regard. The situations are not remotely similar.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don’t believe I’m confusing anything. I believe, in principle, that the right of woman to not be forced (that is the correct word) to get nude in front of men against their will trumps the desires of men to be allowed to get nude in front of women. I believe, in fact, that the women that will be grossly uncomfortable in being forced to strip against their will in front of nude men are justified in being grossly uncomfortable. I believe mine is by far the more accurate description of the inevitable outcome of any law that compels private spaces to accept use by any person that self identifies as a gender that is perfectly opposite their actual sex.



On the contrary. That I can prevent any unwanted discomfort that results from the action of most all men with whom I am nude isn’t clouding the issue, it IS the issue in the question you posed.




Thank you. I believe your position is in opposition to the rights of females.



The level of safeguarding that is required to make this proposed policy safe for women is the only argument needed in opposition. It is and always will be wrong to force women to get naked in front of men against their will. There is not good to be achieved by doing so.



There is no and there can never be a right for men to be nude with women that do not consent.




Where can this currently occur? Specifically where can a man walk into a woman’s shower without consequence while it is in use by women, strip, and start washing up?



Worst analogy in the history of the internet. It fails in every regard. The situations are not remotely similar.

Boy oh boy.

1) You still seem to be misunderstanding and misusing words. I'll say again: the words "men" and "women" - in the context of a discussion of transgender identity - refer solely and strictly to gender. And the words "male" and "female" refer solely and strictly to biological sex.

So where you, for example, write "It is and always will be wrong to force women to get naked in front of men against their will", I'm pretty confident that what you actually mean is "It is and always will be wrong to force females to get naked in front of males against their will". And there are several more examples of this within your post.


2) It appears from the tenor of your post that you don't believe gender dysphoria and transgender identity to be valid conditions. Would that be an accurate inference? When you state things such as "It is and always will be wrong to force women females to get naked in front of men males against their will. There is no good to be achieved by doing so", it certainly seems to me that you have little or no regard to any rights for transgender people.


3) I'll ask once again: where should transwomen change when they use a sportscentre etc, if not the women's changing rooms? And does your answer to that question depend upon the nature and extent of physical transition? In other words, should a transwoman who has had gender reassignment surgery and hormonal treatment (which results in the adoption of many feminine characteristics, including breasts) change in the women's changing rooms? If not, should she change in the men's changing rooms?


4) Do you believe (I'm guessing you do) that the executive and legislative arms of government in many liberal democracies - including the UK and the US - are wrong in their policy decisions wrt transgender identity and transgender rights? If so, do you believe that this is the product of sheer ignorance/carelessness on the part of all those hundreds of government officials (a sizeable proportion of whom are ciswomen)? Or do you believe that it's the product of all those hundreds of government officials (a sizeable proportion of whom are ciswomen) being somehow brainwashed by transgender rights pressure groups? Or do you believe that it's the product of latent misogyny and/or a wanton disregard for the rights of ciswomen on the part of all those hundreds of government officials (a sizeable proportion of whom are ciswomen)?


5) On the analogy front, it appears you've failed to understand the underlying truth linking the two situations. Of course black civil rights and transgender rights are very different things. But the salient point is this: the introduction of black civil rights was met by protests from white people, who believed that the granting of these black civil rights would result in increased harm to white people. Likewise, you and others are protesting that the granting of transgender rights would result in increased harm to females. Sorry if my previous presentation of this was apparently "the worst... in the history of the internet". (NB: wild extremes of hyperbole often tend to diminish the credibility of an argument).


6) Did you have any comment/response on the first part of my post, which you snipped in your reply? (I'm not implying anything by this - I'm just curious)